BWitcher Posted October 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 If you use the Shawn Moran case as a parallel, Tai would not be World Champion. There would be no World Champion. Quite possibly, I think HenryW mentioned this earlier in the thread. I suppose the only difference is the Moran case was sometime afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) Quite possibly, I think HenryW mentioned this earlier in the thread. I suppose the only difference is the Moran case was sometime afterwards..Of course Shawn was second; so just leaving that 'empty' and not upgrading Todd Wiltshire was quite reasonable at the time. BUT had the run-off for the title gone the other way, meaning that he had to be stripped of first place, then I think things may have been handled differently. In those circumstances the claims for Per Jonsson to be upgraded to Champion may have been quite persuasive. . Edited October 27, 2016 by Grand Central 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 If you use the Shawn Moran case as a parallel, Tai would not be World Champion. There would be no World Champion.Not sure it works as a parallel. Moran is listed as "disqualified" which is unambiguous. But I suppose you could argue that "remainder of the season" is intended to mean that the ineligibility is only till the end of the current season and they would be eligible for the next season subject to qualification I.e. not a permanent ban from the series. Very true, and if that was the intent then bwitcher is correct that Hancock should not be world Champ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) Very true, and if that was the intent then bwitcher is correct that Hancock should not be world Champ. Why? He 'took part' in the Melbourne GP as the rule requires him to. There is no mention of a rider having to take all his rides. Edited October 27, 2016 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavan Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Ineligible for the remainder of the season means exactly that , he can't ride for the rest if the season not ineligible from being world champ!! What he did was shocking but those on here saying he is ineligible to be world champ are in cloud cuckoo land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Piss poor wording. I tend to agree it says he can't be World Champ. You cant win something you're ineligible for. But I concede the bit about remainder of the season muddies things a bit. I think he need some punishment though. Maybe start next season on -25 points or something. Riders can't just walk out, even if you're Greg "walk out" Hancock who has now done it to Oxford, Reading, America and the Aussies fans at the GPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted October 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Ineligible for the remainder of the season means exactly that , he can't ride for the rest if the season not ineligible from being world champ!! What he did was shocking but those on here saying he is ineligible to be world champ are in cloud cuckoo land Making things up again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Ineligible for the remainder of the season means exactly that , he can't ride for the rest if the season not ineligible from being world champ!! What he did was shocking but those on here saying he is ineligible to be world champ are in cloud cuckoo land it says, "ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship" - now ask yourself what Greg currently is.... winner of the "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship" right? How can you win someone you're ineligible for! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) Piss poor wording. I tend to agree it says he can't be World Champ. You cant win something you're ineligible for. But I concede the bit about remainder of the season muddies things a bit. I think he need some punishment though. Maybe start next season on -25 points or something. Riders can't just walk out, even if you're Greg "walk out" Hancock who has now done it to Oxford, Reading, America and the Aussies fans at the GPs. Why was he 'ineligible'? The rule states, quite simply, he had to 'take part' in the meeting. He took part. "A rider who has entered the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship and refuses or is unable to take part, is deemed to be suspended competing internationally for a period of 1 day before and up to 3 days after the Grand Prix meetings concerned. Furthermore, he shall be considered as ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship for the remainder of the season. A rider who has started in the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship must participate therein unless prevented from doing so by injury or other force majeure. A suitably qualified medical practitioner must certify injury or illness in writing to that effect." Edited October 27, 2016 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted October 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) Hmm... I originally thought you were onto something Vincent, but nope. Hancock did refuse to take part. Whether he took part beforehand is again irrelevant. The moment he withdrew from the meeting he was in essence refusing to take part. Again, you are having to invent something that isn't there to fit your argument. It doesn't state in a 'meeting'. It simply says, refuses or unable to take part. Hancock did that. As I have said before, that is why the cover story was needed that the FIM 'agreed' to him withdrawing due to him being so upset. Edited October 27, 2016 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) Hmm... I originally thought you were onto something Vincent, but nope. Hancock did refuse to take part. Whether he took part beforehand is again irrelevant. The moment he withdrew from the meeting he was in essence refusing to take part. Again, you are having to invent something that isn't there to fit your argument. It doesn't state in a 'meeting'. It simply says, refuses or unable to take part. Hancock did that. As I have said before, that is why the cover story was needed that the FIM 'agreed' to him withdrawing due to him being so upset. Notice the phrase at the end of the first sentence 'the Grand Prix meetings concerned'. So it does specify 'in a meeting'. Edited October 27, 2016 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted October 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) Notice the phrase at the end of the first sentence 'the Grand Prix meetings concerned'. So it does specify 'in a meeting'. Yes, but not in relation to the refusing to take part. That is specifically, refusing to take part in the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship. The Grand Prix meeting is simply to define when the 'suspension' from racing takes place from. If what you were claiming was correct, they wouldn't need the cover story would they? Edited October 27, 2016 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) Yes, but not in relation to the refusing to take part. That is specifically, refusing to take part in the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship. The Grand Prix meeting is simply to define when the 'suspension' from racing takes place from. If what you were claiming was correct, they wouldn't need the cover story would they? Yes, the suspension covers the period one day before and three days after the meeting a rider didn't take part in. What cover story? They're merely telling us why he pulled out of two of his rides, having ridden in three others and therefore having taken part in that meeting. Edited October 27, 2016 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted October 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Yes, the suspension covers the period one day before and three days after the meeting a rider didn't take part in. What cover story? They're merely telling us why he pulled out of two of his rides, having ridden in three others and therefore having taken part in that meeting. Again, making things up. The rule says nothing about a meeting. It states if you refuse to take part in the "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship". Are you claiming his final two rides were not in the "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 surely the Poole doctor has signed a certificate by now saying that he was mentally unfit to ride? i'm surprised he wasn't spotted out on a golf course... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Again, making things up. The rule says nothing about a meeting. It states if you refuse to take part in the "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship". Are you claiming his final two rides were not in the "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship" ? The only person seeing things that aren't there is you. The word 'meetings' is in the rule, the word 'rides' is not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 the more times i re-read that rule, the more i think Bwitcher is right. I don't think it is as clear cut as he says, but it is certainly the most reasonable interpretation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted October 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) The only person seeing things that aren't there is you. The word 'meetings' is in the rule, the word 'rides' is not. The word meetings is in reference to the time period he is suspended for. What part of "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship" don't you understand? I'll ask you the simple question again. were Hancocks final two rides part of the "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship"? It's a simple question.. yes or no? Edited October 27, 2016 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Strewth, I thought this would be done with by now. It doesn't matter a squat what any of us make of the regulation, the FIM aren't taking further action because they've accepted Greg's explanation that he didn't feel in a mental state to continue. Guess that comes under the Force Majeure thing. So that's it, it's done, over with; common sense has prevailed. Now, everyone can move on and look forward to next year with a decent line up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 The word meetings is in reference to the time period he is suspended for. What part of "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship" don't you understand? I'll ask you the simple question again. were Hancocks final two rides part of the "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship"? It's a simple question.. yes or no? That's the name of the series. They could just as easily have written A rider who has entered the Speedway Grand Prix series and refuses or is unable to take part.....' The salient point is this - '....and up to three days after the meetings concerned'. In other words '....up to three days after the meetings he did not take part in'. As I posted, the words 'take part' and 'meetings' are an important part of the rule. Now show me where it mentions 'rides'. Greg Hancock did take part in the Melbourne GP, he rode three heats. He did not transgress this rule. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.